You ask whether certain information is subject to required public disclosure under
chapter 552 of the Government Code. Your request was assigned ID# 138579.

The City of El Paso (the "city") received a request for information pertaining to a missing
person case. Specifically, the requestor seeks: 1) the missing person report regarding the
individual's disappearance; 2) any other documentation regarding the disappearance; 3) any
other police reports regarding the missing individual; and 4) any police reports regarding two
other specified individuals. You state that the city has already released the basic
information,(1) however, you claim that the remainder of the requested information is excepted from disclosure under sections 552.101 and 552.108 of the Government Code. We have considered the exceptions you claim and reviewed the submitted information.

We begin our analysis with the two complaint reports, submitted as Exhibits B and C, which
you claim are excepted under section 552.108. Section 552.108(a)(1) excepts from
disclosure "[i]nformation held by a law enforcement agency or prosecutor that deals with
the detection, investigation, or prosecution of crime . . . if . . . release of the information
would interfere with the detection, investigation, or prosecution of crime[.]" Generally, a
governmental body claiming an exception under section 552.108 must reasonably explain,
if the information does not supply the explanation on its face, how and why the release of the
requested information would interfere with law enforcement. See Gov't Code §§ 552.108(a),
(b), .301(e); see alsoEx parte Pruitt, 551 S.W.2d 706 (Tex. 1977). You explain that these reports pertain to the 1993 disappearance of an individual. Although the disappearance
occurred seven years ago, recent events have transformed the missing person investigation
into a homicide investigation which is now pending. Based on this representation, we find
that release of the submitted reports would interfere with an ongoing criminal case, and
therefore, the submitted reports are subject to section 552.108(a)(1). Therefore, the city may
withhold most of Exhibits B and C with the exception of the front page information which
you state the city has released. See generally Gov't Code §552.108(c); Houston Chronicle Publ'g Co. v. City of Houston, 531 S.W.2d 177 (Tex. Civ. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1975), writ ref'd n.r.e. per curiam, 536 S.W.2d 559 (Tex. 1976); Open Records Decision No. 127 (1976). Although section 552.108(a)(1) authorizes the city to withhold the non-front page information from disclosure, you may choose to release all or part of Exhibits B and C that
is not otherwise confidential by law. See Gov't Code § 552.007.

Now we turn to the remainder of the submitted information, Exhibits E though G.(2) You claim that this information is confidential under section 552.101 in conjunction with common law privacy. Section 552.101 excepts from required public disclosure information that is considered confidential by law, either constitutional, statutory, or by judicial decision. Accordingly, section 552.101 encompasses common law privacy. Where an individual's
criminal history information has been compiled by a governmental entity, the information
takes on a character that implicates the individual's right to privacy. See United States Dep't
of Justice v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749 (1989).

In this instance, the requestor asks for all criminal records regarding the individual who
disappeared as well as two other named individuals. You explain that it has not yet been
determined with absolute certainty whether the individual who disappeared is deceased.
Accordingly, we believe that the request implicates the privacy rights of that individual and
that of the two other named individuals. Thus, to the extent that the city has records
responsive to the request in which any of the three named individuals is a possible suspect,
the city must withhold this information under section 552.101.(3) See id.

This letter ruling is limited to the particular records at issue in this request and limited to the
facts as presented to us; therefore, this ruling must not be relied upon as a previous
determination regarding any other records or any other circumstances.

This ruling triggers important deadlines regarding the rights and responsibilities of the
governmental body and of the requestor. For example, governmental bodies are prohibited
from asking the attorney general to reconsider this ruling. Gov't Code § 552.301(f). If the
governmental body wants to challenge this ruling, the governmental body must appeal by
filing suit in Travis County within 30 calendar days. Id. § 552.324(b). In order to get the full
benefit of such an appeal, the governmental body must file suit within 10 calendar days.Id. § 552.353(b)(3), (c). If the governmental body does not appeal this ruling and the governmental body does not comply with it, then both the requestor and the
attorney general have the right to file suit against the governmental body to enforce this
ruling. Id. § 552.321(a).

If this ruling requires the governmental body to release all or part of the requested
information, the governmental body is responsible for taking the next step. Based on the
statute, the attorney general expects that, within 10 calendar days of this ruling, the
governmental body will do one of the following three things: 1) release the public
records; 2) notify the requestor of the exact day, time, and place that copies of the records
will be provided or that the records can be inspected; or 3) notify the requestor of the
governmental body's intent to challenge this letter ruling in court. If the governmental body
fails to do one of these three things within 10 calendar days of this ruling, then the requestor
should report that failure to the attorney general's Open Government Hotline, toll free,
at 877/673-6839. The requestor may also file a complaint with the district or county
attorney. Id. § 552.3215(e).

If this ruling requires or permits the governmental body to withhold all or some of the
requested information, the requestor can appeal that decision by suing the governmental
body. Id. § 552.321(a); Texas Department of Public Safety v. Gilbreath, 842 S.W.2d 408,411 (Tex. App.-Austin 1992, no writ).

If the governmental body, the requestor, or any other person has questions or comments
about this ruling, they may contact our office. Although there is no statutory deadline for
contacting us, the attorney general prefers to receive any comments within 10 calendar days
of the date of this ruling.

2. Exhibit D contains the city's elaborations on arguments raised in its letter of June 29, 2000.

3. The information you have submitted to this office does not make it clear whether the city has criminal records in which the three named individuals is a possible suspect. Only criminal records in which any of the named individuals are suspects are confidential under section 552.101.